Category Archives: Economic Costs

Bag Bans – Market Driven Solutions Superior

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The movement to ban plastic carryout bags is growing as more and more California communities enact single-use bag ordinances.  These ordinances are very similar to one another and go beyond banning plastic carryout bags to implementing a very specific solution.   This solution attempts to change the shopping paradigm where shoppers supply their own reusable bags rather than receive store supplied disposable bags to carry their purchases.  To ensure that consumer behavior is changed, retailers are required by the local ordinance to charge a minimum fee for each paper bag issued. 

By implementing a specific solution, mandated by the government, innovation is stifled and businesses are no longer free to pursue alternative solutions that are in their best interests.  Government officials and their staffs simply do not have the expertise and time to investigate alternative solutions to solve the underlying problem or have the motivation to improve retailer customer service, therefore the government mandated solution locks an inadequate and antiquated solution into place.  Furthermore, freedom of choice on both the part of retailers and consumers is unnecessarily sacrificed, restricted, and infringed.

To read more, click on the following link: Bag Bans – Market Driven Solutions Superior.

Related articles

Bag Bans: A Failure – Not Success As Claimed

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Plastic Carryout Bags, Recycling Impacts, Reusable Shopping Bags, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As more and more communities pass ordinances to ban plastic carryout bags, a key question remains: Are these bag bans successful?  Proponents of bag bans are quick to point out that once the bags are banned, fewer plastic bags will be found as litter in the environment.  Of course, that is true.  If the use of plastic carryout bags is sharply reduced by a bag ban then the quantity of plastic carryout bags found as litter will be similarly reduced and reflected in litter surveys.  But does that single measurement signify the success of the ban?  Or are there other factors that must be considered before a bag ban can be declared a success?  In this paper we will look at this question and attempt to provide a reasonable answer.

To read more please click on the following link: Bag Bans: A Failure – Not Success As Claimed.

Related articles

Repeal Of Issaquah Bag Ban On The Ballot In 2014

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, Local Ordinances, Plastic Carryout Bags, , , , , , ,
City Hall South, Issaquah, Washington. The bui...
City Hall South, Issaquah, Washington. The building houses the council chambers and municipal court. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On October 21, 2013 the Issaquah City Council voted to put the newly qualified citizen’s initiative to “REPEAL of Plastic Bag Ban and Forced Bag Charge” on the February 11, 2014 ballot.  Giving citizens the opportunity to resolve the ban’s fate.

Thanks to the hard work of Craig Keller, co-founder of Save Our Choice, and a small team of volunteers. More than 15% of all Issaquah voters signed the petition to force the city council to either repeal the ordinance or refer the decision to voters.

Earlier in October, the King County Department of Elections concluded that enough valid signatures were collected to qualify the initiative for the ballot and issued a Certificate of Sufficiency for the Save Our Choice petition to Issaquah City Council.  A total of 2626 out of 4266 signatures collected were found to be valid to qualify the initiative.

According to Craig Keller, there is mounting dissatisfaction with ban and the majority on the city council had the power to correct their earlier bad decision.  In fact, once the King County Department of Elections certified that the initiative had collected enough valid signatures, the city council could have repealed the ordinance but instead voted to put the issue on the ballot in 2014.

Now residents of Issaquah, Washington will have a voice on whether the plastic bag ban and fee on paper bags will be repealed.

Related articles

Rebuttal of the San Jose Bag Ban Results

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
English: Montage of San Jose, California pictures.
English: Montage of San Jose, California pictures. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In November of 2012, ten months after implementation of the San Jose Bag Ban, the city issued a report claiming success.  The memorandum contained an analysis of litter surveys and claimed a reduction of on-land plastic bag litter of 59%, 60% in creeks, and 89% in storm drains.  The latter figure is widely used by bag ban proponents as proof the law works.  However, problems with the underlying data as well as the methodology used indicate that these reduction figures are questionable.  Other factors such as a cost analysis was never done by the city nor were other less costly alternatives investigated.

In an article “San Jose Bag Ban Report Rebuttal” the authors respond to the claims of success in a stinging rebuttal.  The authors claim that the wrong parameter was measured, measurement methodology was unscientific and flawed, bag usage observations were not taken at a broad cross-section of stores, no cost/benefit analysis was conducted, and serious negative impacts were never addressed.

The authors present an analysis of plastic bag litter reduction calculations by the city as well as supply their own.  Also presented is a pre ban and post ban cost analysis of carryout bag use showing the cost increase that is incurred by consumers.

Related articles

Santa Barbara City Council Votes To Move Ahead With Bag Ban

Economic Costs, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Plastic Carryout Bags, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
English: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
English: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On 1 October 2013 the Santa Barbara City Council voted to deny the appeal by Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (STPB) and to go ahead with the Plastic Bag Ban.  The issue will come to the council for a second reading of the ordinance in two weeks.

On August 8, 2013 the Santa Barbara Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to certify the Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment (BEACON) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a City of Santa Barbara Addendum without notifying interested parties in a timely manner.  As a result interested parties, such as myself and STPB, were not able to attend the public meeting to answer questions or to present a case why the EIR is flawed and should be rewritten.  After finding out about the action,  STPB filed an appeal which was heard at the 1 October 2013 City Council meeting.

To read the entire article click on the following link:  Santa Barbara City Council Votes in Favor of Plastic Bag Ban.

Related articles

Bag Bans: Wrong Way to Control Litter

Economic Costs, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Plastic Carryout Bags, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , ,

Bag Bans are the wrong solution to control litter from plastic grocery bags.  Many communities are driven to ban these bags because they are a very visible form of litter.  But is banning these bags the right solution?  I don’t think so, and neither should you!

Plastic bags of all kinds make up only about 0.6% of litter.  So a ban on plastic grocery bags would at most eliminate no more than 0.6% of litter.  The other 99.4% is still out there waiting to be cleaned up!

All carryout bags have a negative environmental impact.  Paper bags and reusable bags have a higher negative environmental impact and larger carbon footprint than plastic bags.  In fact, 10 out of 14 environmental indicators go up after a bag ban is implemented, meaning a bag ban is a bad idea from an environmental perspective.

For more information see: Bag Bans Wrong Way To Control Litter.

Related articles

Why are Grocers For Plastic Bag Bans?

Economic Costs, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , ,
English: This is a paper bag from Victory Supe...
English: This is a paper bag from Victory Supermarkets (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you ever wondered why grocery stores are in support of a plastic bag ban?  Well, I have.  I wondered if they supported the bag ban in order to cozy up to local officials?  Or was it because they wanted to be good citizens?  Or, is there some kind of financial incentive?

Before a bag ban, stores purchased plastic and paper bags and distributed these bags at checkout for “free”.  They really weren’t free, the retailer purchased and paid for the bags and passed the cost to you in the form of higher retail prices.  Plastic bags cost less than 2 cents each and paper bags from 5 to 8 cents each in bulk quantities.  The cost of plastic and paper bags is considered an overhead cost or an indirect cost and is indirectly paid for by customers. Continue reading Why are Grocers For Plastic Bag Bans? →

San Jose Bag Ban: Litter Survey Results Exaggerated!

Bag Ban Myths and Misinformation, Economic Costs, Local Ordinances, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bags, , , , , , , , ,

 

Scene from downtown San Jose at City Hall
Scene from downtown San Jose at City Hall (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The city of San Jose is one of the few cities in California that conducted litter surveys before and after a plastic bag ban went into effect. The city conducted surveys of litter on city streets, creeks, and storm drains.  The city published results in a memorandum dated 20 November 2012.

Environmentalists and Bag Ban Proponents love to say that “San Jose saw an 89% reduction in plastic bag litter after the bag ban.”  However, that is not what the San Jose 1 Year results show, as stated below:

“The various litter surveys demonstrated a reduction in bag litter of approximately 89 percent in the storm drain system, 60 percent in the creeks and rivers, and 59 percent in City streets and neighborhoods, when compared to data collected from 2010 and or 2011 (pre-ordinance) to data from 2012 (post-ordinance).” (Romanov, 2012)

Stating that San Jose saw an 89% reduction in plastic bag litter deceitfully overstates the 59% reduction in plastic bag litter found on San Jose city streets and sidewalks; and the 60% reduction in plastic bag litter found in creeks and rivers.

Not only are environmentalists hyping the wrong number, the number itself is based upon a reduction of 71 fewer plastic bags found in 22 storm drain catch basins and hardly the kind of number to be tossed around.

Environmentalists and Bag Ban Proponents should be using the 59% reduction in plastic bags on streets and sidewalks instead of the 89% reduction in storm drains. 

Bibliography

Romanov, K. (2012, November 20). Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance Implementation Results and Actions To Reduce EPS Foam Food Ware. Retrieved August 12, 2013, from City of San Jose: http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/TE/20121203/TE20121203_d5.pdf

Related articles

The Lies, Myths, Half-Truths, and Exaggerations of Bag Ban Proponents

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Plastic Carryout Bags, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bag Bans are one of the latest Eco-Fads being pushed by the “green” movement and virtually all “environmental” groups as a solution to the plastic bag litter problem.  These groups put enormous pressure on city officials to implement a plastic bag ban and paper bag fees on their citizens.  These groups attempt to link virtually every environmental problem to the simple plastic grocery bag, defying logic and misleading government officials, the media, and the public by continuously repeating a series of lies, distortions, and half-truths that do not hold up under scientific scrutiny.

There is a saying that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.  This is often the strategy of the bag ban proponents.  And the internet has afforded thousands of people eager to ban bags the ability to repeat the same lies and distortions over and over until people just accept them as fact.

In this article we examine a majority of the most often quoted and repeated lies and distortions related to plastic bags and bag bans.

Click on the following link to read or download the article: The Lies Myths Half Truths and Exaggerations of Bag Ban Proponents.

Related articles

Statewide Bag Ban Would Cost Residents More Than $1 Billion!

Economic Costs, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bags, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , ,

State Lawmakers and environmentalists who propose a statewide plastic carryout bag bans, like so many officials in communities that have implemented such bans, most often fail to take into consideration the economics of a bag ban and the increased costs to residents.  Not only will residents incur out-of-pocket costs to purchase bags, but depending upon the type of bag chosen, personal time will be required to manage bags and maintain bags in a sanitary condition. Continue reading Statewide Bag Ban Would Cost Residents More Than $1 Billion! →